Gender Bias in Science
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) persist as male dominant fields. Despite the higher percentage of women attending college, the percentage of women who obtain a major in a STEM field is much lower than their male counterparts. There are multiple theories as to why women seem to poses a "lack of interest" in the STEM fields, one of which is that men have a natural affinity to STEM fields and so are more drawn to it. Based on personal experience and conversations with peers, I suggest that this belief is dated, unfair, and dangerous to the future of STEM fields in America. On this page I summarize and reflect on five articles related to gender bias and synthesize the papers to look at whether a measurable achievement gap exists and if there is evidence of a natural male affinity towards STEM fields.
Gottfried, M. A. ., & Williams, D. N. . (2013). STEM Club Participation and STEM Schooling Outcomes. Participação Nos Clubes de Ciência, Tecnologia, Engenharia E Matemática (STEM) E Desempenho Escolar STEM., 21(79), 1–23.
Summary Gottfried and Williams look to see if participation in a math or science club outside of class has a positive effect on math and science education. The study is designed to look at two different measures of “success” in math and science. The first measure is whether participating in a club improves GPA in the related subject. The second part of the study looks at future enrollment in a related college major based on club participation. The data used was from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which began in 1994 and was completed in 2002, the eight year data set allowed Gottfried and Williams to look at the longitudinal persistence of students in science and mathematics fields.
The study indicates that participation in clubs has a positive impact on student performance (grades) and on raising long term interest (major enrolment). The researchers state that the increased performance may be due to a passive exposure to content at the club, or an innate interest causing the student to join the club. The researchers state that the results were consistent across race, ethnicity and gender, but not when it comes to poverty. The authors have no good explanation for why students living in poverty seem to gain relatively little by joining a science or math club when compared to students not living in poverty.
The study ends with some discussion on the limitations of the study and recommendations for further research. The authors ask if the quality of the club would make a noticeable difference in the gains a student would have by joining, what effect the amount of participation would have, and whether a career themed or subject themed club would offer better results.
Reflection I included this article because it shows two things. First it looks at a way to close some of the achievement gaps, and leads to some additional questions for the best way to address scientific achievement gaps. The second reason is because the study was unable to find a meaningful difference in results across gender. This seems to support some of the articles I have read, as well as personal observations, where it isn’t so much an achievement gap that separates men and women but a confidence gap.
Hill, D. C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so Few Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (pp. 1–28). Washington, D.C: AAUW. Retrieved from __http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/chapter-1-women-and-girls-in-science-18040707__ Summary The first chapter in Why so Few Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics is from a report by the American Association of University Women. The chapter provides an excellent overview of the low percentage of women in the STEM fields. The chapter tracks the disparities from high school performance, where women tend to outperform their male peers in both GPA and earned credits (1990-2005), to college graduation, 36% more men graduate with a degree in a STEM field, and career, where 82% of the computer science workers at the PhD level are male and 66% of the Biology, Agriculture, and Environmental Life science workers with PhDs are male.
The end of the chapter looks at three commonly cited explanations for these trends. First that the differences are based on cognitive sex differences. This theory is often debated with some research showing that there is a measurable difference and other studies showing that this is nonsense. The second theory is that women lack interest. The chapter points to studies showing that interest is often correlated with perceived ability to succeed. A study found that a 20 minute clip of a female engineer talking about the benefits of being a female engineer had a positive influence on interest. The third explanation is that the workplace environment, bias, and family responsibilities are to blame.
Reflection The first chapter of Why so Few Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics is a good summary of many of the other articles. While it doesn’t look at high school specifically, it does show some of the potential effects of high school education on a female professional. The disparity between achievement, in this case GPA, and reward, in this case a job, or interest in the field is striking. One interesting thing to notice is that while, on average, high school girls have better GPA’s in the Mathematics and Science fields (2.76 compared with 2.56), they perform slightly poorer on high-stakes tests and fewer females opt to take the AP tests. This discrepancy continues when the students enter college with only 15% of women planning to complete a STEM major (29% of men).
The report indicates that a perceived achievement gap based on gender may be present since boys tend to score better on high stakes testing. Since a majority of achievement gaps are defined by test scores this difference, even if small, may give an appearance of an achievement gap. The article, however, points to GPA as another form of achievement, one where female students outperform male students. Under the assumption that science curriculum is rich and representative of the knowledge needed to succeed in a STEM field, GPA should be as good an indicator of performance and achievement as high stakes testing. Based on the in class success, and the small difference in test scores, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is not a major difference between male and female students when it comes to innate STEM ability.
Summary Mary Hodges starts by reflecting on the gender bias she has seen in the science and math fields as a student. She then looks at the work of David and Myra Sadker who have spent time studying the biases present in science classes in the United States. For one study, the Sadkers logged and timed the teacher’s interactions with male and female students in classes. They found that male students were given an average of 3-5 seconds to respond to a question compared with just 0.9 seconds for female students. In their book, Failing at Fairness: How america’s Schools Cheat Girls, The Sadker’s discuss the importance of building young women’s confidence in science and math and the ramifications of losing confidence early in life, "If the cure for cancer is forming in the mind of one of our daughters, it is less likely to become a reality than if it is forming in the mind of one of our sons. Until this changes, everybody loses."
Hodges goes on to discuss her interviews with some female colleagues at NIH. Using anecdotal evidence from a Behavioral Neuropharmacologist who attended college in the 60’s and a postdoc who was in school in the 80’s, Hodges shows that many young women are taught that, “It was not cool to be smart”. The three major factors for women who pursued careers in science were parental involvement, getting into advanced classes early, and being exposed to female researchers who could become role models. The general consensus among the people she talked to was that the gender lines are improving rapidly, but there is still a long way to go.
Reflection This article gives more perspectives the the gender bias in science. The anecdotal evidence supplied by the women working at NIH fits in with the statements made in the Klein article as well as my personal observation. The paper is older, using evidence from the 1980’s so by itself it may not seem as relevant as some other articles, but when compared with more modern papers, the Hodges article gives a frightening baseline which seems to be similar to current issues. The amount of time given to answer a question is interesting, as giving male students 3-5 times more time to articulate an answer would certainly seem to give the impression that those students are more capable of answering the questions. This "observed competence" could easily undermine the confidence of a female student and be detrimental to the future of the child.
The above quotation regarding the cure for cancer is used as the opening line in Hodges' main article. It is a quotation attributed to David Sadker and underlines the detrimental effects of a gender bias in some fields mentioned in the hypothesis. It demonstrates how innovation is the destination of the sums of an individual's experiences. In order for someone to, potentially, cure cancer the conditions have to be right for the original thought to form. The more people going into STEM fields, the higher the possibility that a mind capable of the necessary connections will choose to study cancer. By allowing gender bias to influence gifted young women away from highly demanding STEM fields, we are limiting the number of potential researchers, as well as the number of perspectives, addressing majorly important topics.
Summary In this article, Rebecca Klein introduces a book, Enhancing Adolescents’ Motivation for Science, written by Lee Shumow and Jennifer A. Schmidt from Northern Illinois University. The article cites research attempting to indicate why female high school students tend to gravitate away from the STEM fields. The study cited uses observation and self-report testing to measure student confidence. The results showed that boys get more attention from teachers, would rate their competency at higher levels, and that teacher gender was not a factor in the system. The study, known as the “Science in the Moment” study, found that male and female students had similar interest and achievement levels (based on self-report questions and grades/test scores) but women had lower confidence. The study was performed by observing classes and giving students a pager. Students would be called out of class randomly to answer a survey which included questions indicative of self-confidence levels.
Reflection This article offered interesting insight into what may be a possible problem with current science education. The researchers state that teachers are unintentionally enforcing the prevailing gender bias of our society, “[Teachers] live in our society so they see who the scientists are, and by and large they’re men.” They also posited that the female students could be treated as being less skilled because they feel less skilled, and are trapped in a cycle. The most interesting part of this article was that there seems to be negligible difference in the bias based on the gender of the teacher. This does make me wonder if it has partially to do with the fact that science education has been ingrained in many for their entire lives, so not much attention is put into making it gender neutral.
Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. (2005). Gender Bias Lives, for Both Sexes. Education Digest, 70(8), 27–30.
Summary In this article, Sadker and Zittleman discuss the presence of gender bias in the classroom for students of both genders. They start by demonstrating a few ways that gender bias is still present in the classroom such as; boys seeing reading as feminine and report it, “threatens their masculinity”, by third grade 51% of boys vs. 37% of girls have used a microscope in class, girls are less likely to use and be comfortable with technology, girls tend to get higher grades while boys tend to outperform on tests, by 6th grade girls would rather be popular than academically competent, and other biases like bullying and teacher gender. The article then points to some of the causes and warning signs of gender bias. Among them are teacher bias, student beliefs, learned helplessness, self-imposed stereotyping.
Reflection Sadker’s paper looks at gender bias brought on by the no child left behind (NCLB) legislation. It is an interesting article wherein the authors talk about some of the more historic biases, typically stereotypes perpetuated by society at large, as well as express concern over NCLB encouraging gender segregated schools. The paper is interesting as it alludes to the gender gap in science being based more on confidence and interest than actual ability and talent. One of the most interesting things mentioned in this paper was the 14% difference between boys and girls who had used a microscope in class. Not only was the discrepancy between boys and girls interesting, the fact that so few students in general had used a microscope was troublesome to me.
Conclusion The research seems to indicate that there is no significant "achievement" gap in STEM classes. This is based off of the fact that a majority of the research indicates that female students have a higher GPA while having, slightly, lower test scores. The research also indicates that there is a disenchantment with STEM fields in women as they progress through school and into careers. The overwhelmingly male dominant STEM fields, and the reported lower confidence of female STEM employees is telling for underlying social beliefs. While the lack of confidence and success of women in science is not surprising, the statistics of success and interest in high school were. The fact that since 1992 women have been taking an increasingly disproportionate science and math course load than their male peers and tend to receive .2 more GPA points in those courses was not expected. Based on the attitudes and feelings of many female scientists, I would expect a much more measurable reason for the job disparity.
The articles as a whole support the idea that men do not have an innate ability in math or science that creates a natural bias against women. Much of the data points to societal sources of the discrepancy. As mentioned above, the biggest shock to my theory was that the presence of an "achievement gap" would be very difficult to prove based on current definitions of achievement. The solutions offered by the
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) persist as male dominant fields. Despite the higher percentage of women attending college, the percentage of women who obtain a major in a STEM field is much lower than their male counterparts. There are multiple theories as to why women seem to poses a "lack of interest" in the STEM fields, one of which is that men have a natural affinity to STEM fields and so are more drawn to it. Based on personal experience and conversations with peers, I suggest that this belief is dated, unfair, and dangerous to the future of STEM fields in America. On this page I summarize and reflect on five articles related to gender bias and synthesize the papers to look at whether a measurable achievement gap exists and if there is evidence of a natural male affinity towards STEM fields.
Gottfried, M. A. ., & Williams, D. N. . (2013). STEM Club Participation and STEM Schooling Outcomes. Participação Nos Clubes de Ciência, Tecnologia, Engenharia E Matemática (STEM) E Desempenho Escolar STEM., 21(79), 1–23.
Summary
Gottfried and Williams look to see if participation in a math or science club outside of class has a positive effect on math and science education. The study is designed to look at two different measures of “success” in math and science. The first measure is whether participating in a club improves GPA in the related subject. The second part of the study looks at future enrollment in a related college major based on club participation. The data used was from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which began in 1994 and was completed in 2002, the eight year data set allowed Gottfried and Williams to look at the longitudinal persistence of students in science and mathematics fields.
The study indicates that participation in clubs has a positive impact on student performance (grades) and on raising long term interest (major enrolment). The researchers state that the increased performance may be due to a passive exposure to content at the club, or an innate interest causing the student to join the club. The researchers state that the results were consistent across race, ethnicity and gender, but not when it comes to poverty. The authors have no good explanation for why students living in poverty seem to gain relatively little by joining a science or math club when compared to students not living in poverty.
The study ends with some discussion on the limitations of the study and recommendations for further research. The authors ask if the quality of the club would make a noticeable difference in the gains a student would have by joining, what effect the amount of participation would have, and whether a career themed or subject themed club would offer better results.
Reflection
I included this article because it shows two things. First it looks at a way to close some of the achievement gaps, and leads to some additional questions for the best way to address scientific achievement gaps. The second reason is because the study was unable to find a meaningful difference in results across gender. This seems to support some of the articles I have read, as well as personal observations, where it isn’t so much an achievement gap that separates men and women but a confidence gap.
Hill, D. C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so Few Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (pp. 1–28). Washington, D.C: AAUW. Retrieved from __http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/chapter-1-women-and-girls-in-science-18040707__
Summary
The first chapter in Why so Few Women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics is from a report by the American Association of University Women. The chapter provides an excellent overview of the low percentage of women in the STEM fields. The chapter tracks the disparities from high school performance, where women tend to outperform their male peers in both GPA and earned credits (1990-2005), to college graduation, 36% more men graduate with a degree in a STEM field, and career, where 82% of the computer science workers at the PhD level are male and 66% of the Biology, Agriculture, and Environmental Life science workers with PhDs are male.
The end of the chapter looks at three commonly cited explanations for these trends. First that the differences are based on cognitive sex differences. This theory is often debated with some research showing that there is a measurable difference and other studies showing that this is nonsense. The second theory is that women lack interest. The chapter points to studies showing that interest is often correlated with perceived ability to succeed. A study found that a 20 minute clip of a female engineer talking about the benefits of being a female engineer had a positive influence on interest. The third explanation is that the workplace environment, bias, and family responsibilities are to blame.
Reflection
The first chapter of Why so Few Women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics is a good summary of many of the other articles. While it doesn’t look at high school specifically, it does show some of the potential effects of high school education on a female professional. The disparity between achievement, in this case GPA, and reward, in this case a job, or interest in the field is striking. One interesting thing to notice is that while, on average, high school girls have better GPA’s in the Mathematics and Science fields (2.76 compared with 2.56), they perform slightly poorer on high-stakes tests and fewer females opt to take the AP tests. This discrepancy continues when the students enter college with only 15% of women planning to complete a STEM major (29% of men).
The report indicates that a perceived achievement gap based on gender may be present since boys tend to score better on high stakes testing. Since a majority of achievement gaps are defined by test scores this difference, even if small, may give an appearance of an achievement gap. The article, however, points to GPA as another form of achievement, one where female students outperform male students. Under the assumption that science curriculum is rich and representative of the knowledge needed to succeed in a STEM field, GPA should be as good an indicator of performance and achievement as high stakes testing. Based on the in class success, and the small difference in test scores, it seems reasonable to conclude that there is not a major difference between male and female students when it comes to innate STEM ability.
Hodges, M. W. (n.d.). GENDER BIAS IN THE SCHOOLS: IS SCIENCE THE BIGGEST LOSER?NIH Catalyst. Retrieved July 22, 2014, from __http://www.nih.gov/catalyst/back/95.03/q.gender.html__
Summary
Mary Hodges starts by reflecting on the gender bias she has seen in the science and math fields as a student. She then looks at the work of David and Myra Sadker who have spent time studying the biases present in science classes in the United States. For one study, the Sadkers logged and timed the teacher’s interactions with male and female students in classes. They found that male students were given an average of 3-5 seconds to respond to a question compared with just 0.9 seconds for female students. In their book, Failing at Fairness: How america’s Schools Cheat Girls, The Sadker’s discuss the importance of building young women’s confidence in science and math and the ramifications of losing confidence early in life, "If the cure for cancer is forming in the mind of one of our daughters, it is less likely to become a reality than if it is forming in the mind of one of our sons. Until this changes, everybody loses."
Hodges goes on to discuss her interviews with some female colleagues at NIH. Using anecdotal evidence from a Behavioral Neuropharmacologist who attended college in the 60’s and a postdoc who was in school in the 80’s, Hodges shows that many young women are taught that, “It was not cool to be smart”. The three major factors for women who pursued careers in science were parental involvement, getting into advanced classes early, and being exposed to female researchers who could become role models. The general consensus among the people she talked to was that the gender lines are improving rapidly, but there is still a long way to go.
Reflection
This article gives more perspectives the the gender bias in science. The anecdotal evidence supplied by the women working at NIH fits in with the statements made in the Klein article as well as my personal observation. The paper is older, using evidence from the 1980’s so by itself it may not seem as relevant as some other articles, but when compared with more modern papers, the Hodges article gives a frightening baseline which seems to be similar to current issues. The amount of time given to answer a question is interesting, as giving male students 3-5 times more time to articulate an answer would certainly seem to give the impression that those students are more capable of answering the questions. This "observed competence" could easily undermine the confidence of a female student and be detrimental to the future of the child.
The above quotation regarding the cure for cancer is used as the opening line in Hodges' main article. It is a quotation attributed to David Sadker and underlines the detrimental effects of a gender bias in some fields mentioned in the hypothesis. It demonstrates how innovation is the destination of the sums of an individual's experiences. In order for someone to, potentially, cure cancer the conditions have to be right for the original thought to form. The more people going into STEM fields, the higher the possibility that a mind capable of the necessary connections will choose to study cancer. By allowing gender bias to influence gifted young women away from highly demanding STEM fields, we are limiting the number of potential researchers, as well as the number of perspectives, addressing majorly important topics.
Klein, R. (2014, April 29). Sexism Is Alive And Well In High School Science Classes, Study Says. Huffington Post. Retrieved July 20, 2014, from __http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/29/sexist-high-school-science_n_5234915.html__
Summary
In this article, Rebecca Klein introduces a book, Enhancing Adolescents’
Motivation for Science, written by Lee Shumow and Jennifer A. Schmidt from Northern Illinois
University. The article cites research attempting to indicate why female high school students tend to gravitate away from the STEM fields. The study cited uses observation and self-report testing to measure student confidence. The results showed that boys get more attention from teachers, would rate their competency at higher levels, and that teacher gender was not a factor in the system. The study, known as the “Science in the Moment” study, found that male and female students had similar interest and achievement levels (based on self-report questions and grades/test scores) but women had lower confidence. The study was performed by observing classes and giving students a pager. Students would be called out of class randomly to answer a survey which included questions indicative of self-confidence levels.
Reflection
This article offered interesting insight into what may be a possible problem with current science education. The researchers state that teachers are unintentionally enforcing the prevailing gender bias of our society, “[Teachers] live in our society so they see who the scientists are, and by and large they’re men.” They also posited that the female students could be treated as being less skilled because they feel less skilled, and are trapped in a cycle. The most interesting part of this article was that there seems to be negligible difference in the bias based on the gender of the teacher. This does make me wonder if it has partially to do with the fact that science education has been ingrained in many for their entire lives, so not much attention is put into making it gender neutral.
Sadker, D., & Zittleman, K. (2005). Gender Bias Lives, for Both Sexes. Education Digest, 70(8), 27–30.
Summary
In this article, Sadker and Zittleman discuss the presence of gender bias in the classroom for students of both genders. They start by demonstrating a few ways that gender bias is still present in the classroom such as; boys seeing reading as feminine and report it, “threatens their masculinity”, by third grade 51% of boys vs. 37% of girls have used a microscope in class, girls are less likely to use and be comfortable with technology, girls tend to get higher grades while boys tend to outperform on tests, by 6th grade girls would rather be popular than academically competent, and other biases like bullying and teacher gender. The article then points to some of the causes and warning signs of gender bias. Among them are teacher bias, student beliefs, learned helplessness, self-imposed stereotyping.
Reflection
Sadker’s paper looks at gender bias brought on by the no child left behind (NCLB) legislation. It is an interesting article wherein the authors talk about some of the more historic biases, typically stereotypes perpetuated by society at large, as well as express concern over NCLB encouraging gender segregated schools. The paper is interesting as it alludes to the gender gap in science being based more on confidence and interest than actual ability and talent. One of the most interesting things mentioned in this paper was the 14% difference between boys and girls who had used a microscope in class. Not only was the discrepancy between boys and girls interesting, the fact that so few students in general had used a microscope was troublesome to me.
Conclusion
The research seems to indicate that there is no significant "achievement" gap in STEM classes. This is based off of the fact that a majority of the research indicates that female students have a higher GPA while having, slightly, lower test scores. The research also indicates that there is a disenchantment with STEM fields in women as they progress through school and into careers. The overwhelmingly male dominant STEM fields, and the reported lower confidence of female STEM employees is telling for underlying social beliefs. While the lack of confidence and success of women in science is not surprising, the statistics of success and interest in high school were. The fact that since 1992 women have been taking an increasingly disproportionate science and math course load than their male peers and tend to receive .2 more GPA points in those courses was not expected. Based on the attitudes and feelings of many female scientists, I would expect a much more measurable reason for the job disparity.
The articles as a whole support the idea that men do not have an innate ability in math or science that creates a natural bias against women. Much of the data points to societal sources of the discrepancy. As mentioned above, the biggest shock to my theory was that the presence of an "achievement gap" would be very difficult to prove based on current definitions of achievement. The solutions offered by the